In the Land of Kerry's Allies
What's old is new again, oui? Seems that Old Europe can't quite rid itself of its true sentiments. And this is the country that John Kerry says is the ally without which our Coalition in Iraq is illegitimate?

When is France going to pull what's left of its head out of its ass and realize that Jews are not their problem? They are being colonized and eaten alive by their Muslim friends. Indeed, it's probable that the pieces of shit that desecrated the Jewish cemetery you see in the picture were young Muslim men. But it could have just been some cheese-eating surrender-monkeys.

In any event, France needs to put its house in order before the Mohammedans destroy the whole fucking country.

"Wounded in Three Places"
The BBC is reporting that al-Sadr has been "wounded in three places." That's according to one of the Iranian stooge's aides. But that must also mean that the bearded turd wasn't holed up in the Imam Ali mosque, as was believed. He probably skedaddled to avoid having a stray round set off the ammo dump he's made of that particular [holy site].

Fucking chumps.

Kill 'em all.

Dies Irae
Be sure to follow what Hammorabi and the other Iraqi bloggers are saying right now.

Many Groups of Sadr Militia surrendered to the Iraqi Police and Coalition forces after they gave up their arms. Among them are children less than 12 years old given RPG 7 and Kalashnikovs? Bullshit instead of a book and a computer or a game.

We will get pictures of their surrender later.

There is an imminent attack with tear gas to those hide themselves inside Imam Ali shrine and among them MS who escaped earlier.

Iran frustrated by the news of thousands of the militia it trained started to surrender and among them many Iranians, and Arabs. This makes an Iranian top leader to announce that the US will soon face a similar defeat like Vietnam War! A clear sign indicating the involvement of Iran in what is going on in Najaf and the Iraq.

Yeah. It's a good thing that there aren't any terrorists or members of the Axis of Evil causing Iraq any trouble. See, not only is there no connection between the "War on Terror" and this War on Iraq being waged by Bushitler, but Iraq didn't even have terrorists until we forced them to come and fight us. Don't you get it yet?

Apropos of Something, I'm Sure
Now Playing: "Madame George" by Van Morrison
When I heard of the confessions to homosexuality of New Jersey's governor today, it reminded me of something from somewhere a long time ago, but I couldn't quite remember what it was until just now.

You knew, right, that New Jersey has had a long history of similarly interesting governors? One such governor was Edward Hyde, Viscount Cornbury (1661-1723):

Perhaps the most infamous characteristic of Edward Hyde is not his status as a corrupt politician, but rather that of a cross dresser. Numerous rumors have circulated that Viscount Cornbury liked to dress in women's clothes in order to have a likeness near to his cousin, Queen Anne. A painting hangs in the New York Historical Society whose description reads, "Viscount Cornbury, governor of New York and New Jersey (1702-1708)." The painting is a portrait of a man wearing a woman's clothes, and it was identified as being Cornbury in 1796, seventy-three years after his death. This painting is a piece of evidence that supports historians' uniform depiction of Hyde as a cross dresser.

There have been many stories told throughout history of his escapades as a transvestite. One was told by Horace Walpole in a conversation with his friend George James Williams. Walpole recounted,

"He was a clever man. His great insanity was dressing himself as a woman. Lord Orford [Walpole] says that when Governor in America he opened the Assembly dressed in that fashion. When some of those about him remonstrated, his reply was, 'You are very stupid not to see the propriety of it. In this place and particularly on this occasion I represent a woman (Queen Anne) and ought in all respects to represent her as faithfully as I can.'"

Heh, heh. Of course, there's no correlation between being gay and being a transvestite unless, of course, you believe, as most Americans do, that there is.

As for Governor McGreevey, I couldn't care less whether he's gay. But he's obviously dipped himself in some deep derrieregy to have to resign his office.

Who knows? Maybe there's an upside for President Bush in all of this. He's only 20 points down in the Garden State.

A Solution
Now Playing: "A Means to an End" by Joy Division
Since we don't want to destroy the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf, but do want to kill Sadr and his fellow murderers, why don't we just promise Saddam a few extra virgins in paradise if he'll just tell us where he hid his VX?

"Jumpin' Jack Flash ---it's a gas, gas, gas...yeah..."

The Gorebot Is Such a Joke
Mood:  irritated
In his latest demonstration to the American people that his loss in 2000 was a blessing from God, Al Gore, in a speech before a friendly crowd of high-profile music industry types today, spewed the usual on the President's choice of Porter Goss to head up the CIA.

Gore, in a speech to the Music Row Democrats, said that with the selection of Goss, an eight-term congressman from Florida, Bush "just thumbed his nose" at the bipartisan commission established to investigate the attacks.

That would be after years of Bush's support for George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, without so much as a word of blame, right? The Gorebot went on to piss and moan:

"But a president of the United States who is genuinely and deeply concerned with healing the wounds of the nation and bringing us together as a people and doing everything possible to learn the lessons of 9/11 and implement the recommendations of that commission and make sure that it would not happen again would not appoint a partisan director," Gore to said to loud applause.

Well! With such a run-on list of qualifications, it would seem that Gore has some particular person in mind. He certainly doesn't mean Bush, but he can't really mean Kerry, either. I think Gore is thinking of some Fantastic Composite President, made of gears and wires and all things sensitive and non-Republican.

"Bringing us together as a people" is a monumentally pussified phrase that signifies nothing. If people are apart ---ideologically or intellectually or otherwise--- that isn't something that a President can really be responsible for, is it? There's no line to toe here, is there? If Dhimmicrats want to go off on their pro-terrorist tangents and hate America in their very dreams, what is George W. Bush supposed to do to fix that? Appoint Bob Kerrey DCI? Get the fuck outta here!

Most real Americans would agree that having an ideologically-inclined DCI ---someone like Bill Casey was to President Reagan--- is a good thing. We need our top spook to have a focus and a mission. We need him to work well with our President and to do more to push the infiltrate the bad guys' networks. That's been our bane for a long time now: too much reliance on eyes in the sky at the expense of human intelligence.

And another thing, Mr. Winner of the Popular Vote: the Kean Commission isn't some sort of ad hoc Supreme Court. Remember what your opinion of non-elected bodies of arbitration usually is. Just because partisan hacks and grandstanders like Richard ben Veniste and Jamie Gorelick say that we should carry out their recommendations doesn't mean that this or any other President is obligated to. President Bush is doing plenty to fight the terrorists; he doesn't need your "advice" on how to protect America. In fact, if he took your advice, we probably would have already suffered another attack on our shores.

Gore, just crawl back under your rock and wait for your next call from Mr. Soros.

Nauseating
If you can stand to read it, there's an editorial in today's New York Times by Dahlia Lithwick concerning the daily disintegration of our Bill of Rights at the hands of Bushitler. It turns out that the right of the people to freely assemble and be anti-American assholes is being infringed (emphasis added):

It's easy to forget that as passionate and violent as opposition to the Iraq war may be, it pales in comparison with the often bloody dissent of the Vietnam era, when much of the city of Washington was nevertheless a free-speech zone.

It's tempting to say the difference this time lies in the perils of the post-9/11 world, but that argument assumes some meaningful link between domestic political protest and terrorism. There is no such link, except in the eyes of the Bush administration, which conflates the two both as a matter of law and of policy.

Lithwick's "argument" seems to be that people who hate Bush have a right to physically and proximately confront both him and the people who choose to support him in public venues such as speeches, rallies, and conventions. Bush-haters have a Constitutional right to disrupt the assemblies of those who support him and make any place where such events are held a "free speech zone."

This is garbage for two reasons. One, it is an infringement upon the rights of others to peaceably assemble and to advocate their own interests. Americans who support our President will have made considerable effort to come and be near him as he makes an appearance, and it is fundamentally unfair to expect them to subject themselves to some pack of hecklers or troublemakers whose clear purpose is to make a scene and get the attention that mommy never gave them as children. These oh-so principled "dissenters" have only one thing in mind, which is to gain the attention of Big Media. Nothing would give these French-loving degenerate flag-burners a bigger woody than to get ten seconds on Peter Jennings' evening apology. And that's a right? There's a right to sufficient media coverage for fifth-columnists to spew their bile? Try again, Ms. Lithwick.

Two, the physical imposition of violence-minded Bush-haters in concentrated areas introduces a high potential for chaos, confusion, and loss of control. Neither the President nor the Secret Service nor any other defender of this Administration is obligated to stand there and allow people who are obviously unstable and filled with hate to have the kind of "access" to the President that they would like. Apparently, Lithwick is unfamiliar with the logic of rope-lines, security perimeters, security sweeps and checks, metal-detectors, and dozens of other such measures. This is the President we're talking about, not a county commissioner. In the past 40 years, we have seen what apparently friendly crowds can wreak upon prominent American politicians. Is it really so unreasonable that, in a time of war and asymmetrical terrorism, our President should be afforded the highest physical protection? I didn't see the DNC refusing security perimeters in Boston, you know.

As for Lithwick's more scurrilous point ---that this Administration is busy making dissent into terrorism--- she is simply spreading the usual Leftist hysteria. These hippies and flakes would like us to believe that they are being repressed and censored, but that simply isn't happening. People are free to speak their minds in every conceivable public venue. They can assume false identities and rant all day long on the internet. They can assemble with like-minded people anywhere they wish. They can make a nuisance of themselves with placards, bullhorns, and their usual stench. They can make propaganda films and laugh all the way to the bank. If they're sufficiently well-connected, they can get a gig on a major network or a radio station. They can write books, letters, and Congressmen. So forget all this crushing-of-dissent gibberish: nobody's knocking on the doors of average people who hate Bush in the middle of the night. It's a lie to say they are.

The anti-war Left, being on the inherently more intelligent side of this argument of whether the President is the Anti-Christ, should believe in the primacy of ideas. But they do not. They believe in ideology as performance art. They believe in clustering together in their little claverns where no other opinion may intrude. But they are not entitled to intimidate others in places where those people are assembled to demonstrate their own beliefs. It may be laughable to think that the anti-war crowd poses a physical danger to people who believe in the Second Amendment, but as the stakes grow larger in this time of war, only irresponsible hacks like Lithwick would ignore the potential for domestic dissent to turn violent. And as the anti-war Left's beliefs and behavior come to resemble ever more closely the qualities of treason and sympathy for terrorists, real Americans would be wise to be on their guard.

Even against the Sandal-Wearing Patchouli People.

Just a Tourist
This is why we don't need any more "tourists" in our country:

A Pakistani man held in North Carolina, who had videotaped buildings in Houston and five other Southern cities, remains an enigma to federal investigators who have not linked him to any terrorist groups, officials said Wednesday.

But a spokesman for the Houston FBI office called the 40-minute video of Houston landmarks shot by Kamran Akhtar obvious surveillance footage.

Among the locales this craphound videotaped was Mansfield Dam, a major piece in the puzzle to the Lower Colorado River here in the Austin area. Above it is Lake Travis, below it is Lake Austin.

I had the privilege a few years ago of working out in Lakeway and I always enjoyed the scenery that way. It pisses me off that some Mohammedan nutjob would even think to do something that would cause my city harm.

No more foreigners. Round them up and send them back home on leaky boats.

Ojo de Dios
This is greatnews, if true:

NASA may spend as much as $1.6 billion to save the Hubble Space Telescope, and scientists have been told to begin planning a robotic mission to save the orbiting observatory, the Baltimore Sun reported.

An audience of about 200 engineers, astronomers and technicians at the U.S. space agency's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, which controls the operations of the telescope, cheered when Administrator Sean O'Keefe told them to find a way to repair the telescope, the paper said.

The Hubble Space Telescope is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm very pleased to hear that we're gonna do what we must to keep it going.

Just don't tell Sherwood Boehlert. Prick.

A Message I Sent to the Anti-war Left
Now Playing: "Fresh Air" by the Quicksilver Messenger Service
I hate the idea that we're having to bomb the cemetery at Najaf and that we may even wind up damaging the mosques there. As much contempt as I have for Islam, I have at least as much for the ruination of History's great places. But the Sadrites have brought this on themselves and their holy of holies. They, as well as everyone else in Iraq, know that this "insurgency" is nothing of the kind; it is murder for murder's sake; it is their psychotic fantasy of reliving the martyrdom of Ali; it is suicide by cop. No matter how wrong you are in believing that the War for Iraq is a mistake, surely you people must concede that these "insurgents" have no legitimate political aspirations. They have no hope of making some place for themselves in a civil Iraq. They have become the vector for Iranian, Syrian, and al-Qaedist intrigue in Iraq, and they have caused thousands of deaths because of it.

I hope the next few days will bring us news of Sadr's death and the total collapse of his stupid Mahdi militias. I sincerely wonder whether any of you shares that hope.

Airbrushes
Here's a great post at a blog called Dislogue about how the Kerrion are being "disappeared" from the Internet. From the gleeful hatred of Markos Zuniga (a prominent online Kerry fundraiser better known as the proprietor of The Daily Kos) towards the American contractors murdered and desecrated at Fallujah to the now-dead link to Kerry's foreign policy advisor Joe Wilson's restorehonesty.com, these rotten bastages are trying to hide their tracks. But it doesn't work.

Purging links may not on the surface appear to be the same as airbrushing people out of photographs. But each is an attempt to hide the fact that there were links between people, links that matter historically. The campaign did issue a statement about Kos, but admitted no error in associating with entities so extreme.

There's plenty of anti-American hatred out there among the anti-war online Left. Kos and the Democratic Underground are particularly egregious examples of this, but the worst offender that hasn't yet gotten its comeuppance is the ultra-Left Eschaton. There, you can threaten to physically harm people who disagree with you ---and the worthless hack who runs that site, Duncan Black, permits these threats to stand. Why is that? Because Black has no character. By virtue of allowing threats of physical violence against dissenters to be published at his site, Black is tacitly encouraging this behavior.

(Hat tip to the Power Line.)

Level It
CNN is saying that the final push in the Battle for Najaf is underway. If it weren't hypocritical for an atheist to wish our men and women godspeed, well...I'll risk it, anyway: May God watch over us and our friends and be done with this lousy Iranian stooge and his fucking gangs. God bless our armed forces and reward them with Sadr's mangled corpse. Iraq will be free and these murderers will be punished. God's will be done.

The Creepy Broad's Early Years
This is a useful article on Teresa Heinz' early life.

She must not become America's First Lady.

Time to Shitcan Norm Mineta
Michelle Malkin (who, not incidentally, is completely delicious) is also right: Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta should have been fired years ago.

After 19 Islamist foreign hijackers murdered 3,000 people on American soil, Mineta quickly declared that any profiling taking into account race, ethnicity, religion or nationality would be forbidden in airport security. When 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Croft asked Mineta whether he could envision any circumstance where it would make sense to use racial and ethnic profiling, he responded, "Absolutely not."

Of course, this is a stupid prohibition. It isn't that we don't know who the enemy is, it's just that we are too sensitive (i.e., cowed, whipped, correct, etc.) a society to single out the people most likely to be troublemakers and murderers and give them a good going over.

As readers of Malkin's blog know, this issue of racial profiling has been a major one with her for some time now. She even has a book out right now on this (In Defense of Internment), the thesis of which is predicated upon the example of the internment of Japanese-Americans by the Roosevelt Administration during the Second World War. Is there any doubt, in our present context, that Americans would want far greater control over our foreign-born Muslim population were another event like the atrocities of 11 September 2001 to recur?

Mineta, like most Americans, has been brainwashed into believing that the decision to evacuate the West Coast and relocate ethnic Japanese to the interior of the country was motivated solely by racism and wartime hysteria -- rather than bona fide national security concerns.

This myth has served as personal catharsis for many. But in a post-9/ 11 world, we can no longer afford the abuse of history as multicultural group therapy.

The long-hidden truth is that the internment of Japanese, German, Italian and other European enemy aliens, and the mass evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast, were not the result of irrational hatred or conspiratorial bigotry. In fact, President Roosevelt's homeland security policies were firmly justified based on the exigencies and intelligence of the time.

This is the sort of story-telling I enjoy best: re-examinations of major moments in History with an explicit ideological purpose. In theory, one can reach a higher understanding of the past and its influence on the present this way, but we also know that it can be abused if its target audience is too ignorant to know what the other facts are. This is especially so when it gets a Golden Palm or the enthusiastic approval of the leaders of the Democratic Party.

Retardo al-Sadr
Here's what our man Hammorabi has to say about the mullahs' stooge in Iraq (emphases added):

Muqtada Sadr is a good choice for Iran because he is a semi-illiterate man with unstable mentality and suffers from epilepsy. They also used the name of his family and his black turban to attract the uneducated people to fight for him (for Iran). Iran succeeded to some extent to transfer its war with the US from its land into Iraq and by the time decided by them and not the US! The Iranian involvement in Iraq became so obvious that no fool may deny it at all. It is like the sun in the mid of the day!

Heh, heh. This guy's great. Check him out.

Iran's "Alleged" Nuclear Weapons Program
Mood:  don't ask
The Guardian is worried that the United States might start some trouble with Iran, after all the wonderful efforts made by the Appeasers of Greater Eurabia:

The Bush administration is piling on the pressure over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme. It maintains Tehran's decision to resume building uranium centrifuges wrecked a long-running EU-led dialogue and is proof of bad faith.

Ahh. Who knew that our problems with Iran and, indeed, the rest of the crazy-assed Muslim world, were epistemological? How do we know that we know Iran has a nuclear weapons program ---and not just an "alleged" one? Because they've told us so (emphases added):

Iran said yesterday that it had restarted the building of uranium enrichment centrifuges which the United States says are part of a bid to develop an atomic bomb.

American officials claim that Iran intends to enrich weapons-grade uranium, but Tehran insists it only wants to develop its ability to produce electricity. 'We have started building centrifuges,' said Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi in a press conference.

Right. One of the most oil-rich countries on Earth wants to develop nuclear-based sources of electricity. How cutting edge. It's only a guess, but I think Iran actually wants to build nuclear weapons so that they can kill Americans. Oh, and maybe some Jews:

Rafsanjani [Former Iranian president and "Expediency Council" Chairman] said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

No American should want to live in a world where Iran or any other Islamofascist state has possession of nuclear weapons. That's because these seekers of martyrdom and paradise are dangerous to the Earthly hopes of Mankind. They are inherently intolerable to human civilization. This is a notable irony because much of what we owe to the ancient world and the aesthetic beauty of circum-Mediterranean culture was preserved for and extended to us by Islam. And now its modern-day practitioners wish to drag us all down into a new dark age? Fuuuuck that. I got a better idea: let's kill rats like Sadr and Zarqawi and the Original Gangsters back in Afghanistan and see if that's enough of a condemnation of the mullah's homicidalism.

"This Vanity Candidacy"
Mark Steyn, at his rip-roaring best:

If you wanted to pick a candidate on the wrong side of every major defense and foreign policy question of the last two decades, you would be hard put to find anyone with judgment as comprehensively poor as Mr. Kerry: total up his votes and statements on everything from Grenada to the Gulf war, Saddam to the Sandinistas, the Cold War to missile defense to every major weapons system of the 1980s and '90s. He called them all wrong.

Damn. Read the whole thing.

The Internationalist
In today's USA Today, John Kerry releases more of his usual talking points, claiming that he has some great plans in mind for Iraq. They are:

Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

"Lead" NATO, eh? Now, why didn't Bush think of that? Turns out, Senator, those members of NATO who wish to be involved are, and those that don't aren't. How is "leading" the uninvolved going to change that? Did you mean to use the word bribe, instead? And how will NATO's involvement "open the door" to non-NATO involvement? Will the presence of some French mess hall police persuade the Jordanians to go patrol Fallujah? And does the Iraqi government have a say in who gets involved?

Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.

Translation: let the French rebuild Osirak.

Launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Haven't you been paying attention to Chiraq, mon ami? He refuses to do any such thing. He won't permit any French troops to be used in training any Iraqi police forces, unless it's some PT drills on the Riviera. You know, putting your hands up and waving white flags can really give you a good workout.

Plan for Iraq's future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt and involve our allies in the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. At the same time, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's national affairs.

Pure garbage. The only card Kerry can play is the bribery card. If Russia, France, and Germany forgive any debts, they're gonna want some substantial opportunities to make their money back. Therefore, Kerry is talking major contracts for the same people who were making money off of the oil-for-food scheme that the UN was running before. What nonsense!

And why is Kerry tying debt-forgiveness to outside participation in the constitutional affairs of the Iraqi people? The countries that are owed the most never had any interest in the Iraqi peoples' civil and sovereign rights before ---as they were aiding the Saddamites in pursuing total power--- so why does Kerry think these nations are in any way qualified to have a say in those rights now? Once again, Kerry thinks that the ultimate solution to any problem is the consensus of nations that have no moral authority anyway.

This is not an instant solution. There isn't one. But it's a realistic plan to share the burden and secure the peace and bring our troops home.

Gibberish. Kerry has said nothing, which is only consistent with what he's said before ---except on those points where he has managed to speak from both sides of each. That would be all of them, depending on who he's speaking to at the time.

Duncan Black Is a Hypocrite
Earlier in the thread at Eschaton that I was contributing to, I wrote the following:



Duncan Black decided to put his wit to work and came up with this:



And after that he bans me? What the hell? He allows people to physically threaten me for mere words and won't even allow me to defend myself? It isn't right.

How Can I Respond To This?
This is what Duncan Black allows and encourages at his site, while banning people who disagree with him. Is Duncan Black a chickenshit hypocrite? You be the judge.